SRI ALAGAPPA MUTHIAH(HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

2(47)(v) of the I.T. Act cannot be\ninvoked so as to bring the capital gains into tax in the assessment year 2005-\n2006 and thus the very foundation of the assessee's case is devoid of merits\nand not tenable and more so there is a specific clause in the JDA as\nenumerated earlier that the assessee

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD 1, UDUPI, UDUPI vs. BRAHMAVARA VYAVASAYA SEVA, BRAHMAVARA

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue are allowed and the COs\nfiled by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

gains of\nbusiness attributable to the activity of carrying on the business of banking\nor providing credit facilities to its members by a co-operative society and is\nliable to be deducted from the gross total income under Section 80P of the\nPage 7 of 22\nITA Nos.656, 667, 668/Bang/2024\nC.O. Nos. 10, 11, 12/Bang/2024\nAct. The Hon'ble Karnataka

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, UDUPI, UDUPI vs. BRAHMAVARA VYAVASAYA SEVA, BRAHMAVARA

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue are allowed and the COs\nfiled by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

gains of\nbusiness attributable to the activity of carrying on the business of banking\nor providing credit facilities to its members by a co-operative society and is\nliable to be deducted from the gross total income under Section 80P of the\nPage 7 of 22\nITA Nos.656, 667, 668/Bang/2024\nC.O. Nos. 10, 11, 12/Bang/2024\nAct. The Hon'ble Karnataka

M/S. ZASH TRADERS,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

gain. Further, it was\nobserved that there are four categories of capital assets enumerated\nin clauses (a), (aa), (ab) and (b) of sub-section (2) of section 55

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI vs. SMT. SHEELA PRASANNAKUMAR , CHITRADURGA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

55-A of the Act as a matter of course, without\nconsidering the report of approved valuer submitted by the assessee.\"\n5.8 The Hon'ble High Court further held that Section 50-C of the\nAct is a rule of evidence in assessing the valuation of property for\ncalculating the capital gain. The deeming provision under Section

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI, UDUPI vs. BRAHMAVARA VYAVAYASAYA SEVA, BRAHMAVARA

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue are allowed and the COs\nfiled by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

gains of\nbusiness attributable to the activity of carrying on the business of banking\nor providing credit facilities to its members by a co-operative society and is\nliable to be deducted from the gross total income under Section 80P of the\nAct. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court also distinguished the decision of\nthe Hon'ble Supreme Court

PIONEER INDEPENDENT TRUST ,BANGALORE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

capital gain on transfer of units of equity-oriented funds is as per Section 55(2)(ac) of the Act and, therefore

IBM GLOBAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2000-2001

55,17,275/-. Page 2 of 19 2. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) was issued, based on which the details as called for in notice u/s. 142(1) were furnished by the assessee. The assessment was thereafter passed on 31.03.2003, u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144A of the Act. One of the disallowance made

UDAYA SOUHARDA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

capital, if not immediately required to be lent to the members, the society/assessee cannot keep the said amount idle and if they deposit this amount in bank so as to earn interest, the said interest income is attributable to the profits and gains of the business of providing credit facilities to its members only. Bearing in mind the meaning

M/S. THE BHAVASARA KSHATRIYA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MYSURU

55 years, residing at Mysuru and\nPresident of M/s. THE BHAVASARA KSHATRIYA CO-OPERATIVE\nSOCIETY LIMITED, being conversant with the facts of the case do\nhereby solemnly affirm and say on oath as under:-\n1. That I am the President of the above appellant Society\nand I am conversant with the facts of the case and competent to\nswear

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CANARA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

capital gain tax can be levied. " 53. Concluded at page 12 para 21 as under: "27. In the result, we hold that sub-section 115JB as it stood prior to its amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would not be applicable to a banking company. We answer the question No. 2 in favour of the assessee and against

SHARANABASAVESHWAR CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKRI NI HALINGALI,BAGALKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, BIJAPUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 80P(2)(d) of the Act." 22. Again, the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in still a later decision reported in the same volume of ITR in the case of CIT v. Punjab State Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. [2016] 389 ITR 607/76 taxmann.com 307 (Punj. & Har.) concurred with the aforesaid view of the Gujarat

SHRI. SHANTHISAGAR CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HUBLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

capital, if not immediately required to be lent to the members, the society/assessee cannot keep the said amount idle and if they deposit this amount in bank so as to earn interest, the said interest income is attributable to the profits and gains of the business of providing credit facilities to its members only. Bearing in mind the meaning

MR. RAMESH KUMAR,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

gains.\n13. Section 2(47)(v) defines a transfer as follows:\n“Definitions.\n2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, —\n(47) \"transfer\", in relation to a capital asset, includes,—\n(i) the sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset ; or\n(ii) the extinguishment of any rights therein ; or\n(iii) the compulsory acquisition thereof under

CENTRE FOR E-GOVERNANCE ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

55,10,472/- only. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). 8. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee raised legal contention as well as contention on the merit of the case. On the legal count, the assessee contended that it was setup by the Government of Karnataka and carrying out the work of e-governance

SRI JIHVESHWARA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(5), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, this issue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 80P(2)(d) of the Act." 22. Again, the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryan High Court in still a later decision reported in the same volume of ITR in the case of CIT v. Punjab State Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. [2016] 389 ITR 607/76 taxmann.com 307 (Punj. & Har.) concurred with the aforesaid view of the Gujarat

SRI JIHVESHWARA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(5), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, this issue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 80P(2)(d) of the Act." 22. Again, the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryan High Court in still a later decision reported in the same volume of ITR in the case of CIT v. Punjab State Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. [2016] 389 ITR 607/76 taxmann.com 307 (Punj. & Har.) concurred with the aforesaid view of the Gujarat

SRI JIHVESHWARA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(5), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, this issue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 80P(2)(d) of the Act." 22. Again, the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryan High Court in still a later decision reported in the same volume of ITR in the case of CIT v. Punjab State Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. [2016] 389 ITR 607/76 taxmann.com 307 (Punj. & Har.) concurred with the aforesaid view of the Gujarat